Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

First time accepted submitter exomondo writes "Google has given Microsoft until May 22nd to pull their Windows Phone 8 YouTube app from the marketplace and disable it on customer devices. It not only includes a built-in ad blocker but also allows users to download videos and doesn't impose device-specific streaming restrictions outlined in the YouTube Terms Of Service. A Microsoft spokesperson said in part: 'YouTube is consistently one of the top apps downloaded by smartphone users on all platforms, but Google has refused to work with us to develop an app on par with other platforms. Since we updated the YouTube app to ensure our mutual customers a similar YouTube experience, ratings and feedback have been overwhelmingly positive. We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.'"

Normally I'd agree, but in this case it really seems like Microsoft is trying to meet the needs of their customers and Google is not cooperating with them in an attempt to squeeze them out of market share. I'm all for sticking it to M$, but when it hurts the consumer ultimately that really makes Google no better than they are.

Their customers can use the YouTube website - same as everyone else who doesn't have a pre-built app installed or for their platform. Just because you can hack YouTube's website and write a wrapper around your hacks to provide the content doesn't mean its legit.

Isn't accessing web content through means other than the published API or intended URL a hacking offense with prison time after conviction?

They are using the API, the API doesn't provide ads. Google say's they won't make an app. So Microsoft uses the API to make one. So Google comes back and says that apps built using their API don't meet the required terms of service.

The API comes with terms of service. Saying it's OK to ignore them is like saying A DDOS attack is perfectly fine since it too uses the API.I think what Microsoft done is no less then an exploit. And unlike some script kiddie, this is for money.

Uh, no. An API is not subject to copyright, and so you can't sue someone for writing code to an API or reimplementing that API. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether you can use a specific service in a specific way. Google could not stop someone else implementing the YouTube APIs on a different media hosting site.

I think Microsoft has been quite clever here. They're now in the situations where they're giving their customers something that they want, and Google is telling them that they can't. They can't really lose: if they can keep offering the app in the same format, then they can provide a better experience than other platforms. If they can't, then they have some good material for their next round of anti-Google adverts.

In this particular case, Microsoft isn't asking Google to develop the application, just to give Microsoft access to the APIs so that Microsoft can develop the application. Google is not doing that, even though they've given Apple access to the same APIs. So taken by itself, Microsoft is in the right and Google is in the wrong.

But the rumor is that Google is doing this as a "fuck you" to Microsoft because Microsoft has filed patent lawsuits against most of Google's Android partners and is running the "Scroogled" anti-Google publicity campaign. This is just a way for Google to fight back.

MS:Your Honor, we created the App in good faith using the API's available, since those API's do not allow us to add the functions Google is requesting we can not add those features until they make available API's capable of doing so. We are happy to add those features as soon as the API is available we would also willingly remove the app if Google provided a feature complete replacement.Judge: Why aren't the required API's available?Google: Ummmm....Judge: Case dismissed

The point is that Microsofts application isn't using publicly available API's, they are abusing YouTube and violating their terms. Just because Google doesn't provide API's to allow you to make something that meets their conditions doesn't mean you may violate those conditions. It simply means Google doesn't want to present YouTube through anything but their own applications.

Depends on your definition of evil. I personally consider my online privacy to be very important, and on that front Google out-evils the other two by a vast margin. Each of the three has their evil specialty, and there is plenty of evil to go around.

Which might be a valid point if they didn't provide an application to access YouTube for their biggest rival: iOS. But they do, so apparently Google has no problem providing an application for a competing platform when there are a lot of people using that platform. I think the main reason Google doesn't make a YT-app for WP (or BlackberryOS for that matter) is because the market share is in the single digits and therefore it isn't worth the hassle.

Microsoft were in negotiation with Youtube to provide an application for Windows Phone using the same api they do for the Xbox 360 application (which includes ads).
Word came down from Google on-high to kill the negotiation.

Hardly much of a hassle. The server side is 100% already done, they just use the same API as their Android and iOS apps. And putting an app together for a mobile device is something an individual can do in a relatively short time, so not much of a challenge for a giant like Google.

What is undoubtably the case here is that Google did an iOS app, because iOS has the power to put a serious dent in YouTube, and help a competitor such as Vimeo.

It is possible.Those engineers also would have needed to be aware of every Microsoft program that used those unpublished APIs so they could give them a heads up.Or. Engineers in completely different parts of Microsoft not only found the hidden APIs and started using them but magically made changes to the software that would have broken with the API changes that so happened to work around the problems that would have come up under the neew "unpublished" changes to those APIs.

It is much more possible that the system was designed to give Office and IE a leg up.

Because Microsoft is suing Google's Android partners for patent infringement and running a "Scroogled" anti-Google publicity campaign. This is a case where Google is merely fighting back, not abusing its market position.

I'm not, generally speaking, a Google fanboy. They're in business to make a profit, like any other company. But it just so happens that Google benefits most from an open web and Microsoft benefits most from proprietary software and a closed web. Until that changes, I know which is th

No. We do not fail to see how that is a problem.A lack of real freedom with information kinda sucks.This does not give Microsoft the right to do whatever they want.Once Microsoft added the ability to download the videos directly that was Microsoft being an asshole about it.

What we all want is some good shit. Agreed.It does not mean that we have an inherent right to what we would like.

Just because Google doesn't provide API's to allow you to make something that meets their conditions doesn't mean you may violate those conditions.

I have AdBlock Plus installed in Firefox, and I believe it has the ability to block at least some YouTube ads. This violates YouTube's TOS, but I still watch YouTube videos and don't feel compelled to turn off ABP on that site.

If this story was about Google's ultimatum to the AdBlock Plus developers rather than to Microsoft, would we be seeing the same sentiments expressed by the same people here? I doubt it.

Google: our terms of service clearly state that storing downloads for any other purpose than buffering is not permitted.Judge: (to MS) So you ignored the terms of service in building your application?MS: Well, yes, but we just wanted a good user experienceJudge: And my grand-daughter wants a pony. I find you in violation of the TOS, your app must be pulled until you can show it complies.

It is massively different than using an ad blocker. First when usng their APIs they agreed to the TOS. Second Ad Block Modifies your browser to change what it displays, it does not directly access YouTube and download the videos in violation of the TOS, while not displaying the ads..

"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API

That's exactly what they are doing.

they're just scraping content.

Well, they are providing users with an app that can download content. That's not necessarily illegal. Suppose I download a movie, I previously uploaded? The rights are mine, not Google's. Likewise if I download something that you uploaded, it's up to you to say if that's OK or not. The rights are yours not Google's. Now Google may be trying to declare ownership of all the videos on YouTube. But if they are, they are overreaching. When a person uploads a video to YouTube

They make a tool which circumvents the intended use of the site and promotes (or, in this case, requires) the end user complying with the Youtube TOS.

It would be like Napster getting sued for making file sharing geared towards (copyrighted) music convenient and commonplace. Which they did. And lost. The reason so many add-on services get away with doing similar things is that they are small potatoes and not worth attacking - though you'll notice that many download-and-save add-ons are blocked from use in c

We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs

I don't get this. As I understand it, the only thing they need to include advertising is... "nothing".Just remove the ad blocker and the ads will be back. The ads are there by default.Similar with the downloading; you don't need access to the API's in order to prevent you from adding a download option in your app.

Although both features would be highly appreciated, the reasons MS provides are a bit odd.

Normally, I'd line up behind the MS bashing, but I think in this case google is super annoying regarding API access. Why doesn't MS have the tools necessary to make a youtube app that works according to the terms and conditions? Failing that, why hasn't google provided one? Just to shaft microsoft on both counts I suspect. And that's kindof annoying. Are they afraid of a little compeition for android? I don't personally feel like WP8 is anything to worry about... but if so, why do they appear so worri

That might fly for the advertising, but including a download functionality requires a deliberate effort - Microsoft is willfully including a tool with no functionality except to facilitate in the violation of Google's license agreement, and thus copyright. If this ever turns into a court case, MS would probably lose - but they could still drag it on long enough to cost both sides a few million dollars in legal fees, and get a lot of good press if they spin it right.

"So we wanted to take content from Google and strip off the revenue-generating part of it and pass it off to our customers, but Google wouldn't roll over on our demands. So we're just going to take it anyway. Oh what's this? It looks like Google is going to sue us for violating the TOS that they refused to change just for us. Well, maybe now they'll be willing to roll over and play by our rules!"

Idiots. Don't you know you can't be a bully and get away with it unless you're bigger than the other guy?

The TOS is the only thing that would give them a license to distribute Youtube videos through an app. The default state in no right to use the content. Just because I have never red the GPL doesn't mean I can violate open source licensing. I can't just go into a farmers field and start taking food either.

Maybe they're just presenting the web site in a different way than intended by the maker. In how far is one obliged to follow the HTML standard when displaying a page? To run all the javascript? Get all third-party bits and pieces (e.g. advertisements)? Many Firefox add-ons change how a page looks like, by adding things, or blocking things. AdBlockPlus is a thorn in the eye of many advertisers, yet it seems they can't do much against it.

Call my argumentation ridiculous - I know it is. But it is that kind of

Your implication is that Google is being evil because they're preventing Microsoft from taking market share from Google by using Google's services. It's hard to imagine a more one-sided and asinine analysis.

I think Microsoft are just upset they're screwgled because nobody wants Windows 8 or Windows phones and everyone knows it.

Your implication is that Google is being evil because they're preventing Microsoft from taking market share from Google by using Google's services. It's hard to imagine a more one-sided and asinine analysis.

Well, wait a minute now. If it was some bunch of open source geeks making an app that download's YouTube videos and strips the advertisements, and Google came down as hard, I think we'd hear squeals of outrage and demands for Google not to be "evil".

But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?

Now, I can understand this sentiment completely, but let's not pretend that this same "one-sided and asinine analysis" has not been used by everybody on every side of these issues.

At the bottom, this is why having a company control the ecosystem for any platform is a very bad idea. Because we want little companies trying to make things more useful by breaking big companies' models. That's how progress works. The notion that we have to create some protected reserve where the biggest companies can enjoy guaranteed success forever without having to face any competition is really what's asinine.

Well, wait a minute now. If it was some bunch of open source geeks making an app that download's YouTube videos and strips the advertisements, and Google came down as hard, I think we'd hear squeals of outrage and demands for Google not to be "evil".

But because it's Microsoft, fuck them, right?

The nature of the difference is in the purpose or intent of the work, which in this case is to permit violation of Google's AUP for Microsoft's profit (no one will take them seriously without Youtube access.) Specifically, Microsoft has willfully taken these actions for financial gain.

Little companies, yes. Microsoft, no. Their entire history revolved around screwing everyone and everything they could get their hands on, from individual (and little) companies, right up to international standards bodies.

If Google is also preventing Apple, Blackberry, et al, from accessing youtube, then that would be a problem. As far as I know, they're not. They're only refusing Microsoft. Microsoft has yet to do anything that shows they have truely changed their ways (and probably never will as long

If this it what will take Microsoft to get more traction in the mobile market, so be it.

A Youtube client that blocks ads and allows downloads, what else could we ask for??

Who's being evil now???

Evilness doesn't really come into it... Microsoft has written software that uses a third party service in a way that that third party's T&Cs disallow. You're free to avoid services on the grounds that you don't like their T&Cs, but you don't get to just ignore the T&Cs, especially when you're operating commercially.

So I'm breaking their TOS hard... AdBlockPlus takes care of the ads, and a youtube downloader whose name I forgot gives me direct download links for the videos. Oh well. I'm not Microsoft so not likely that Google will sue me.

In all seriousness it doesn't matter what we post here, the market is deciding WM8 fate. A few cheap jabs here aren't going to make a difference as a whole. Besides Linux and Mac users have been putting up with the same cheap jabs for years now.

So Microsoft appears to have made the perfect youtube client? Sonofabitch. When I had limited mobile data, I dreamed for a simple youtube client that could cache several videos for off-line or repeated watching. Of course, Apple won't build a client like - they would rather you not even know youtube existed so you would just buy iTunes everything.

This is similar to making a DVD player without region locks - it makes the player much more useful for its actual users, but pisses off the movie distributers because they want to control how the DVDs are used. In this case, Microsoft has created a youtube player that is better for the user in two important ways (no ads, which the user doesn't want to see, and the ability to store the video for later). This is something I would have expected the open source world to provide; I'm amazed to see a company like Microsoft do it. But I'm sure the programmers responsible for making this user-friendly (in the right sense of the word, not the "ooh shiny" sense) program will soon be punished for his obstinacy.

The ability to block advertisements and download movies is provided by web browser addons, so people championing Google in its fight against this windows phone program would also have to come out against those addons. I hope that isn't as prevalent a view here as it seems from most of the comments so far.

Yes, it is similar but not the same. When you buy dvd, you own it and should be able to do anything with it, because you paid for it. When it comes to youtube, you didn't pay anything, but the bandwidth and the servers Google uses aren't for free. They need to be able to generate revenue somehow.

Unfortunately, the ads on youtube are so annoying and so disturbing, I had to install adblock and I'm not very happy about it. I feel like I should pay Google somehow back for using youtube, but when advertisement banner pops up over subtitles and I'm not able to read them, or 15 seconds intro delays me from watching 1 minute video I can not withstand it anymore.

Microsoft strongarms phone manufacturers on unknown patent claims that android supposedly infringes but when they infringe ToS from Google and are told to change or remove the app, they say it's just Google not wanting to play ball. Good job Microsoft...

I wonder if this will become a humorous on-going issue like it was with WebOS and iTunes. I suppose it depends on how far Google is willing to go to keep YouTube API closed off from Windows Phone users. A change here, and updated app chasing it... Perhaps concluding in a long drawn out lawsuit?

I know it can't be helpful for establishing goodwill between the companies. MS may be able to get away with it, but if they hadn't tickled the dragon's tail, maybe we'd eventually see some more genuine Google apps on the platform.

Yeah, it's easy to be the fastest growing when your installed base is barely above a statistical rounding error. You should consider getting a brain transplant - the one you're using seems to be defective in logic and math.

Most of the posts here are making arguments and suggesting actions that were exactly the same as the ones that generated loud complaints on Slashdot when it was about Microsoft using proprietary crap to lock out Linux/Open Source.

I don't like Microsoft at all, but supporting Google acting more like them is no answer either.

I think Google is just dishing out a little of my MS has been for years. I'm sure the end result will be Google will allow MS to use YouTube, but I still find it a little funny that finally someone can jerk MS around for being dicks for the last 20 some years.

No, they're just a middle man. They own nothing of exceptional value on Youtube. The high value stuff is owned by others and they have agreements in place for revenue sharing on the ads. It's like everything else in their portfolio - they're really just a middle man.

Does Starbucks grow coffee? Of course not - they offer free seating and wireless connections in thousands of locations for the purpose of packaging and selling high-markup derivatives of coffee beans. If you a whole class of people started bring

It's not googles decision to block the content, it's the content owners. Google has been taken to court by big media and have requirements they must meet to allow content owners to restrict access. As far as I remember if google are to continue providing video with big media they have to actively stop clients that download music. This isn't google trying to screw you, it's **AA...

It's not googles decision to block the content, it's the content owners.

I have content on YouTube. It's even CC licensed (unfortunately with their limited license choice). I want people who did something wrong in their past life and are now forced to use Windows Phone to be able to access my content, and preferably be able to download it too.

Don't forget the content creators earn money through those advertisements. Essentially bypassing the ads, rips of the artists directly (if you can call YouTube creators that) and cost Google money directly for streaming for free. I can't imagine the RIAA and the MPAA are looking at Microsoft with warm regards at this moment either. This is Napster territory.

It's funny that most of the time MS could give a rat's about feedback. The only feedback that ultimately means anything is when people stop buying their products (ala Windows 8) and they're absolutely FORCED to get out of their bubble or the product completely dies.

I actually do think there is a major difference here, that being that it's a part of the original ap and not an add on. When ad blocking is an add on (like adblocker) it is quite obviously the user's choice and it isn't a corporate decision.

It also guarantees that a certain percentage of people will see the ads. For instance I deal with people who in my line of work that get amazed when you show them their O.S. has a built in calculator program. They don't have enough smarts or knowledge to put in an ad

Google hasn't sued anyone yet, they've set a deadline but it's not clear what action Google can take. There are several, including:

* Find ways to block the app
* Embed ads in the raw video
* Complete on-going switch to codecs Microsoft doesn't want to support
* Place a "Windows serial number generator" on the front page of Google.com

Is Microsoft doing right by users? That depends on whether their actions completely undermine YouTube or not. I'd like to think that the ability to download movies would

I believe 90% of Slashdot is having a 'Christian Scientist with appendicitis' moment.

There are two levels here. First, did Microsoft develop an app that users will like? Yep, sure, no question (as long as it lasts).

Second: are these users merely pawns in one battle of Microsoft's War on Google, or has Microsoft turned over a new leaf and embraced openness and Free Culture?

The answer to the second question gives clues to the motivations for the first. I'll give 9:1 odds that this app was only dreamed up as a negotiating piece for something Microsoft wants from Google. That's only a historical perspective - how I'd love to lose that bet, but I don't expect to.

Google isn't a fucking leaf of openness and free culture, for fuck's sake!

Want GMAIL OFFLINE? Well, get chrome. The "labs" plugin, which did that for firefox, has been removed. FUCK YOU FIREFOX!! HAHAHA!!!Want to play hidden Angry Birds levels? Well, get chrome. They will appear if you do. FUCK YOU FOREFOX!! HAHAHA!!!

How in fucking earth are people letting this shit pass with Google? Ah yes, people are easily brived with free stuffs. As long as they are providing search and mail and youtube, Google is good

Why doesn't Microsoft make their own "MicroTube" video website, with a download button, no advertising, in the free VP8 format,(maybe also stop threatening with patent lawsuits about that coded) and serve it for free (including oodles of cache space bought from Akamai)?

Customers would flock to this, I'm sure. Google now has the network effect on its side with YouTube, but if MicroTube gives better value to its customers than that might slowly change.

WTF? They're not blocking anything. You do know that the ads aren't part of the video stream right? Microsoft made a client that contacts Google's servers and sends a properly formed request saying "Hey send me that video of the two cats fucking on the stove" and Google's server then sends a video of two cats fucking on the stove to the client which displays it to the end user. Google's complaint is that the client isn't also asking for ads.

They blame MS for being/having been evil, sleazy, monopolistic and any other adjective they can throw at them. Google is "good" because they give us free stuff. And that free stuff is also good. "Boohoo microsoft was once mean to me and i hate them. The googly is my BFF 3".

They don't see that google is as monopolistic as they come. Buying everyone. And anyone they can't buy, they compete and put out of business. They own search, video distribution (in a sleazy way that pays fractions of a cent to "authors"), mobile communications, location, maps, google street view. They can (and do) go through your email. There's google voice so they can (and they do) listen to your phone. And a million things more.But Google will, sooner or later, become "evil". Of course, a company can't be "evil". A company just "is". Larry/Sergei (assuming they're the "gooddoers") won't be at the top forever, and the top will, someday, change. The new management will see the kind of stuff they're sitting on. Half the planet's names, locations, browsing habits, call logs, emails, EVERYTHING you can ever dream of. How do we know they won't sell it to Syria, Russia or Thailand? For all we know, they give it up for free to the US government.

You can be friends with Joe Mechanic, the guy that's been fixing your car for the past 20 years, and you know he's honest and he's never failed you. Joe Mechanic is a person. Google is not. Microsoft is not. Any "BRAND" is NOT your friend.

So, in short. Companies aren't people. They can't be your friends. When you deal with a company, you do it in their own terms. Use them. Abuse them as much as you can, and move on to the next one. If someone else comes up with a better deal, go with them and don't look back. Don't let "20 years of good service" get in the way. It wouldn't matter to them (google pulls the plug in any services they want, whenever they want to). This is not being evil. This is just doing business. Just like when you switch brands in the supermarket.